Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2000
Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@iki.fi> wrote > It's a pity that the behavior of % is so poorly (yeah, as poorly as in > C, I know we are trying to ape C, but aping also mistakes is carrying > it too far) defined in Perl. That's a bit unfair to Perl's documentation. Actually % is very precisely defined. It's just that in the "use integer" case, it's defined by reference to the underlying library, and defining that isn't Perls problem. You can't have a more precise definition unless you change the meaning of "use integer". > (Ditto for << and >>, right? IIRC > shifting by more than the bit width, or shifting by zero or by a > negative number are not defined, either.) Here perlop is a bit minimal. Mike Guy